tv Newsmakers CSPAN September 29, 2013 10:00am-10:31am EDT
hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] klevenis to say what the limit is doing anything to do with obamacare? the answer to that is who is to say the spokes person, to prepare for health care reform. the way transforming care is delivered to patients. she added the $300 million with a cut from the annual budget. >> we know there are things that
are happening right now but we are going to be paid less by private and public paris. -- pairs. insurance companies are paying us less. sequestration had an effect on hospitals. funding decreasing has had an effect on our research. we have had to decrease our costs further. all of this goes into trying to change how health care comes together. it is not one single thing that did it. it is not one program. it is a whole series of things that we are doing starting back 5, 6, seven years ago, changes thatn the are so significant in terms of when we are going to get paid. we have to be even more stringent. >> till because grove on the
future of medical care in the united states. rove on the cosg future medical care in the united states. >> today ernest moniz. us withrters to help questions. we have the national energy environment reporter for the associated press and an environmental reporter for the national journal. >> on friday the intergovernmental panel on climate change came out with its newest report on the state of climate science. said they have maybe five percent certainty that human activities are contributing to global warming. they focused on this 15 year globaln the rate of warning which is something that has got a lots of attention from
skepticism -- skeptics. i him into this -- interested in your take on the report, what it means for u.s. >> it is a watershed. the statement about the extreme opulence of scientists in terms of not only warming but the human role is very clear. it also underpins of the importance of the president climate action plan. i might note that the action plan has a very strong emphasis on mitigating the risks of climate change. perhaps we will talk about some of the things the department of energy is responsible for. we also have to note to the president's plan brought forward a very strong need to prepare for climate risks. are already experiencing the pattern of the expected impacts of global
warming. the report really just highlight the importance of moving now on this issue. viewe said before in my this is the crucial decade for us to start putting in place the programs that we need to mitigate the risks and to adapt as well. if i may, to briefly on the hiatus. a major focus. cc has alwaysip emphasized the warming trend, this is the warmest decade in history, most certainly the warmest of that link and like one and a half millennia at least. there's no question about the secular trend. we know you have very nations
also. it is atmospheric warming versus ocean warming. is not in any way inconsistent with the trend of warming. furthermore, i would note that a paperxample, gave a very interesting the surfaceof how water temperatures in the pacific ocean could easily lead ld variation.e-o we feel confident in the trends. that is like the president has put forward a very strong plan to respond. first majorntly the step was revealed, the revised
proposal for a new power plant, curbing controls on new power plants. as you know, a lot to the discussion on this has been around whether it has been demonstrated and whether it is feasible. when the proposal was unveiled recently, the epa highlighted , two in thelants u.s. and one in canada. all of the power plants have hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding even the one in canada. how do we go forward with this without federal subsidies? it seems you need money. you talk to these builders and they are sent without this we are not going to do it. how is this feasible without a huge investment on the part of the u.s. and taxpayers? >> i think we should emphasize this was a proposed rule for new
power plants. they would come online and have 40-50 year lifetimes. this is saying that new power plants which will have this very long run, a lot the capital investment, utilities are planning on 50 year lifetimes, they have to have a modern technology where modern means being able to meet reasonable standards for what we believe is in essential future low carbon economy. that is the first point. they are going to have a very long future. i also might add that the notirement was certainly for a full capture. it was 430% to 50% of co2. epa administrators have made very clear that the forthcoming rule on existing
power plants would likely be very different. integrating these technologies into a new plant is trying -- different than trying to put it onto an existing plant. in terms of the availability of the technologies. certainly all the components capture transportation and storage and are being demonstrated every day. 2000 miles of co2 pipeline. we have been capturing carbon at the for a long time great plains plant in north dakota. 21 megatons of co2 just cannot project that have been used to enhance oil recovery.
in the united states, we are today using about 60 million -- ofer year of seo team co2. most of that is not from coal plants. in the future to elevate that, producing about 300,000 barrels a day of oil, using the carbon , andde, to scale that up estimates are that we could scale it up to 3 million barrels a day, that will require biting the co2 captured from these plants. they use it tog produce more oil and it will help reduce the cost. >> yes. $30 peraybe a $20 to ton capture. tore are only requiring 30% 50%.
new coal plants will have at least some degree of the technology needed to manage co2 emissions while the agency treats existing plants in a very different manner. >> can you explain for the average viewer who would be co2 and how would the process work for production? >> is happening today. these are oil producers. you take typically oil fields that have been producing for a long time, essentially the reservoir pressure has dropped. the idea that you injected the co2. o2 gets stored. the reader thousand barrels a day of oil are being produced by -- 300,000 barrels a day
of oil are being produced by the co2. >> can you explain that for the lay audience? i'm a climate perspective some people would say that it does not make sense. -- you areing carbon capturing carbon to then take that carbon, inject it underground to a depleted oilfield to get out more oil which will be refined into gasoline and burned in cars to release more carbon. can you talk about the cycle there? >> the oil, first of all we have every expectation that oil will remain a very important part of the transportation fuel mix for quite some time. if we talk stated
about removing carbon dioxide from the admission stream -- stream, the most economic approach is energy efficiency. do not use the energy in the first place. the second is to remove co2 from power plants. easier.gy is it is much harder to do that .rom a mobile source like cars we have a different program. we are advancing efficiency of vehicles. the president worked with the auto companies on aggressive standards that would double vehicle fuel efficiencies. on alternative fuels like advanced biofuels. we are working on rectification of electricfication
vehicles. oil is still going to be used for a while. we are displacing imported oil with domestic oil. as you probably know, our oil production has been up consistently the last four years. we are importing the smallest amount of oil that we have done in about 20 years. what we are doing here is we are displacing importing oil and helping balance the payment substantially by not having to pay for the imported oil. we are taking co2 that would have gone to the atmosphere in and plants, storing it, displacing imported oil with domestic oil. >> is it a net carbon benefit? we use the co2 from power plants to produce more oil? x yes. the oil would have been used in transportation.
it would have been important oil that we would have paid to some other country rather than creating economic activity in this country. >> these are long-term challenges. i want to circle back to an immediate challenge. it looks like we may see a government shut down within the next few days. how does this affect the energy department? what are the plans? >> this is a very serious concern. we are still hopeful that what we view as a completely unnecessary disruption will not occur. having said that, we are .lanning for the eventuality this will have significant impacts. the department of energy, not all the viewers may not be fully aware of these -- of the scope of the activities. we have a lots of information to
protect. we do have essential security functions that we will have to maintain. while other activities probably get trimmed back. on the energy and science sites, story., it is the same we will try to maintain essential activities. petroleum to the reserve which has to be ready in case of any disruption. have emergency response responsibilities should another impact thecome and energy infrastructure. we have to have a balance of being ready to respond to what or impactal security of storms while we try to curtail things. we will not be traveling to conferences.
there are serious impacts. i cannot give you specifics right now. it will depend on exactly how this unfolds. we are hoping to avoid it. we view this as an unnecessary activity that just impacts our delivery of service to the public. we will hope the best we can. >> you talk about elements of the portfolio that i think a lot of viewers are not aware of. people think of energy and coal and oil and gas and renewable. if they are not aware that the energy department has responsibility for nuclear arsenals. shutdown, thet question of what happens with our nuclear weapons is a question that you have to deal with. more specifically about the role of the energy department and president obama's second term. in the first term, there seems to be a shift to trying to put the energy department at the heart or the center of the forefront of the presidents
climate change agenda. bill gaveic stimulus the department about $30 billion in clean energy technology. that money is gone. it is spent. it has been pushed through. there is no more money coming from congress for clean energy research. it looks like the experiment failed. what would you say now going term,d into the second how would you describe the role of the energy department, the pieces that are going to be the most important? to the ideajection that this failed. quite the contrary. the department of energy is core to the climate action plan. i will come back to some of the issues that we funded through the stimulus package as well. the first pillar of the president when -- of the
president's plan is to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. the primary greenhouse gas human induced global warming is carbon dioxide which comes from the combustion of fossil fuels. changes are a second factor. we have a major role in energy efficiency in multiple dimensions. i will just mention one. setting the standards for appliances, electronics, etc. since the climate action plan we have considerably picked up the pace in terms of getting the rules out, walk in freezers and a bunch of things. ules put inup the rle
place during the first term and where we are going over the next two years, the anticipated isings to the consumer measured in the tens of billions of dollars of to say 2030. into the billions of tons of carbon dioxide production. is on a whole bunch of specifics. they really accumulates. all of them must pass the cost benefit test of saving money for the consumer. weon the supply side continue our work in terms of advancing renewables, wind, led improvementemendous in terms of deployment. from the come
investments we made it through a loan guarantee program that was part of the activity of the last years. some controversy. let me say it has been a terrific success. billion loan portfolio has had 2% of default. fund at theeserve congress excels -- itself put aside for what they considered risky technologies. utility scale, solar energy has been a beneficiary of that. the department's initial loan guarantees got the first project going. since then send large projects have gone forward with completely private financing. a third element is the president has articulated what is called
the "all the above" strategy. reducing co2ted to emissions. that is the starting point. constraint of lowered co2 omissions we are working to put forward all the investments we need so that all energy sources are part of that future. we have committed to a billion- dollar loan guarantee program for advancing also energy with lowers omissions. i could go on. there are a lot of these. we have major responsibilities both today in terms of rulemaking and also preparing the technology future with economically competitive low carbon technologies. furthermore, the second pillar of the president when was this one of adaptation to climate change impacts. we are working here with the
building the 21st century infrastructure in a way that is not only good for the --nomy but is reasonably and resilient to future hurricanes or cyber attacks. we have a broad set of responsibilities. if i may go back and say one , still taking offense i mentioned the loan guarantee program. we still have considerable authority within this row graham -- program for advancing new technologies. i already mentioned the fossil energy one. another great success when you look at the whole portfolio has been in the advanced vehicle arena.
we might remember in 2009 the american automobile industry was declared on its last leg. vibrant is a very industry. a huge number of jobs created. both in the traditional site or and in developing -- sector and in developing vehicles. one of the successes of our loan guarantee program was half $1 billion alone to to tesla when it was considered to be risky. tesla pay back the loan nine years in advance. exports.starting this is what we have been doing. we have been trying to get industry moving toward the technologies that we will need for the low carbon future, creating jobs. it is positioning our companies to be competitive in the international marketplace.
we are talking about a trillion dollars scale with energy technology markets. we are going to be in the forefront of that. >> if i can move onto keystone. he president has made the keystone pipeline part of his agenda. poll found 65% of the american people are in favor of it. have said the markets are demanding the pipeline. administration take a decision and what role as the energy department playing? asked the department of state is the lead for such infrastructure projects crossing international borders. they are going through significant do diligence, diligence,- due analyzing the market impacts. timelinegive you the for the review.
the department of energy, as in many of these issues involving other agencies, we are always available for providing technical support and analysis. we have reorganized somewhat and established a new office called "energy policy and systems analysis." this is a capability that we are tending to use and make available across the administration in terms of providing analytical work. -- we haveablished the established energy information administration which provides data. >> had you given the president your recommendation on keystone? >> we do not discuss discussions with the president. the environmental community is pretty much universally opposed to keystone. they see it as contradictory to
obamas climate plans. where do you fall on that? do you believe it is contradictory? if we approve this pipeline does that take the force out of what the president is trying to do with climate? >> the president stated quite impacts ont the carbon emissions will be part of the valuation. that is the analysis going on right now which i cannot prejudge it. >> i want to ask you about the federal commission is usually a body that does not get a lot attention. the president nominee has generated a lot of controversy. the wall street journal wrote an editorial opposing the confirmation. it is looking like you probably will not get confirmation.
we are seeing reports that the president is beginning to consider other possible nominees. thatey objection republicans and democrats have is that they have been very open about the philosophy about the energy. he's very pro-energy. you can look at speeches and powerpoint that he has given. pushing this wherever he can. can you talk about the role of this? it normal for them to have such a strong, open philosophy? what would you like to see? pretty important agency in terms of their regulations for both the
electricians. the statements that you referred to are in the private capacity. >> these are in colorado as well. many were made while he was holding public office. he helped author colorado law the aimed at shutting down coal plants. some of these are in maine -- in capacity as well. >> we are running out of time here. --he is often spoken about has often spoken about natural e.s as an alternativ it is a critical part of a low
carbon economy. the president is committed to making the investments so that all of our sources have a a futureve position in low carbon economy. that is what we're doing. i think they also understand that technologies like wind will have a very critical place. it is not change the fact that regulatorybjective judgments in terms of trying to move our energy infrastructure into the 21st century. for the appropriate nominee to be so out front in his philosophy on energy? is that an appropriate way for a nominee? on it --ly to comment i am not going to comment on a specific nominee. those of us that have been
involved in the energy business, we all have our general approaches to energy. jobsly when you are in the a regulatoryrust, agency has an additional degree of independence. the issue is you have a commission. you have five commissioners. you have a debate. you are addressing very specific example, terms of, for there have been discussions about advancing capacity markets. that is not an issue that any particular technology cap way. nominees have to be to approach energy is